THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I really don't care less what you found on an internet search. As you were the one who was making the proposition, you shouldn't repeat such dreck.

Attempting to blame it on what others have written is laughably pathetic

Cycloptichorn

If you truly don't care, why do you discuss it?

I care to discuss the fact that you are putting forth an idiotic and highly insulting position. I don't care that you got your information from a web search at all. It doesn't add any validity to it, and makes you look bad for attempting to shift the blame elsewhere.

Ahaa! Now I understand you better. It is your position that when I justify my position with references, I'm blaming my references; when you justify your position with references, you are acknowledging them.

Let's get back on topic. When are you going to admit that we are screwed in Iraq? We aren't staying for 'years' longer. You're no fool, you can see what is happening politically.

Cycloptichorn

"We are screwed in Iraq" until we choose tactics that work.

If we leave before we succeed in Iraq, we will be screwed in the USA as well as in Iraq.

There are no tactics that we can undertake that will 'work' in Iraq. Period.

You misunderstand the nature of insurgency and terrorism if you believe any differently.

Failure in Iraq will no more doom us here in the US then failure in Vietnam did. I suspect you are dusting off the same tired sayings and pronouncements of doom from back then and attempting to re-use them, get more mileage out of them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I really don't care less what you found on an internet search. As you were the one who was making the proposition, you shouldn't repeat such dreck.

Attempting to blame it on what others have written is laughably pathetic

Cycloptichorn

If you truly don't care, why do you discuss it?

I care to discuss the fact that you are putting forth an idiotic and highly insulting position. I don't care that you got your information from a web search at all. It doesn't add any validity to it, and makes you look bad for attempting to shift the blame elsewhere.

Ahaa! Now I understand you better. It is your position that when I justify my position with references, I'm blaming my references; when you justify your position with references, you are acknowledging them.

Let's get back on topic. When are you going to admit that we are screwed in Iraq? We aren't staying for 'years' longer. You're no fool, you can see what is happening politically.

Cycloptichorn

"We are screwed in Iraq" until we choose tactics that work.

If we leave before we succeed in Iraq, we will be screwed in the USA as well as in Iraq.

What tactics would work in Iraq? If you can answer that, more power to you.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

"We are screwed in Iraq" until we choose tactics that work.

If we leave before we succeed in Iraq, we will be screwed in the USA as well as in Iraq.

There are no tactics that we can undertake that will 'work' in Iraq. Period.

That's been your unsupported hypothesis for many months now. Do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis?

My hypothesis is there exist tactics that will work. Until my hypothesis is shown by some valid evidence (not just your opinion) to be improbable, I'll stick with it.

You misunderstand the nature of insurgency and terrorism if you believe any differently.

What do you think is my misunderstanding of the nature of insurgency and terrorism?

Failure in Iraq will no more doom us here in the US then failure in Vietnam did.

What valid evidence do you have to show that failure in Iraq will not cause us to be "screwed" in the USA? And don't give us that malarkey that one cannot prove a negative (e.g., one cannot prove the earth is not the center of the universe--oh yes we can and did).

I suspect you are dusting off the same tired sayings and pronouncements of doom from back then and attempting to re-use them, get more mileage out of them.

I suspect you haven't even a clue what was and is my position regarding the USA's participation in the Vietnam war. In any case, I think it isn't relvant to the present discussion.

Cycloptichorn

The problems in Vietnam and Quwait were that one country invaded another country (i.e., North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, and Iraq invaded Quwait). In both cases, the invaders sought to conquer the country they invaded. Neither invader said they were seeking to conquer the USA.

The problem in Afghanistan is that a group that had declared war and waged war in the USA against the USA, had obtained sanctuary in Afghanistan. That group said and says they were and are seeking to conquer the USA among others.

The problem in Iraq is that members of the same group in Afghanistan that had declared war and waged war in the USA against the USA, had also obtained sanctuary in Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan. That group said they were and are seeking to conquer the USA among others.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

...
What tactics would work in Iraq? If you can answer that, more power to you.

Good question!

First tactics that I think will probably not work in Iraq:
(1) leaving Iraq before we discover the tactics that will work in Iraq;
(2) concluding that we cannot succeed in Iraq, because the Bush administration is incompetent;
(3) trying to defend the Iraqi people against al-Qaeda, while trying to defeat al-Qaeda.

The tactics I think probably will work is the USA leaving it to the Iraqi government to defend the Iraqi people, while the USA concentrates on defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq.

0 Replies

More death and mayhem; how does anybody think these bombings will be stopped or reduced?

Suicide blast kills 26 in Iraqi village

By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 38 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber struck outside a cafe in a tiny Kurdish village near the Iranian border Friday, killing 26 people in a remote part of a province where U.S. forces are waging an offensive against Sunni insurgents, police said.

The blast ripped through the coffee shop near a market of Iranian goods in the village of Ahmad Maref, 87 miles northeast of Baghdad, said an official at the joint security coordination committee of Diyala province. At least 33 people were wounded, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The village is home to about 30 Kurdish families who had been expelled under Saddam Hussein's rule and returned after his fall. Many Kurds in the area are Shiite Muslims.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

...
What tactics would work in Iraq? If you can answer that, more power to you.

Good question!

First tactics that I think will probably not work in Iraq:
(1) leaving Iraq before we discover the tactics that will work in Iraq;
(2) concluding that we cannot succeed in Iraq, because the Bush administration is incompetent;
(3) trying to defend the Iraqi people against al-Qaeda, while trying to defeat al-Qaeda.

The tactics I think probably will work is the USA leaving it to the Iraqi government to defend the Iraqi people, while the USA concentrates on defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Staying in Iraq to defeat al-Qaeda plays into al-Qaeda hands. (who btw are less than 10% in Iraq)

Quote:

In a letter captured in autumn of 2006 addressed to a leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq from Al Qaeda proper, the author writes that the "most important thing is that you continue your jihad in Iraq. ... Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God's permission." Actually this should come as no surprise to Americans since the National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the Iraq occupation was helping Al Qaeda recruiting. Unlike the Bush Administration, Al Qaeda sees itself principally trying to win an ideological war rather than a military one. So from its point of view, things that inspire hatred of the West are extremely helpful. It was not for nothing that Osama bin Laden practically endorsed Bush going into the 2004 elections.

Read the whole article ; it is well worth it. Links to support some of the facts are there as well.

0 Replies

This is another reason why the "surge" is a failure. From the BBC..

Iraq market truck bomb kills 105
A deadly truck bombing in a busy market in northern Iraq has killed 105 people and injured 240, police say.
The morning blast destroyed the market in the small town of Amirli, south of Kirkuk, killing many people instantly and trapping dozens among the rubble.

It was the deadliest single attack in Iraq since April, correspondents say.

It came as 29 people were killed in separate violence, including 22 people who died overnight in Diyala province when a suicide bomber hit a cafe.

0 Replies

there is no question in my mind that a fair number of muslims have over the last few years become quite enraged by the tactics of western nations to play one group of muslims against another group of muslims .

while the majority of muslims probably have their hands full just surviving on a daily basis ,others - particularly some young , fairly well educated muslims - seem to be ready for more militant action .

it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are more terror attacks by various muslim groups in various countries - and whatever happens in iraq may not be the deciding factor in that (notice what's going on in pakistan , as an example ) .

i doubt that coming down with a heavy hand in iraq is going to resolve the differences between "western - that is christian - nations" and muslims .
i would think that while the majority of muslims - and muslim nations , such as indonesia - are not yet in the terrorist camp , there is a good opportunity to try and foster good relations between "west and east" .
let's face it , there are more muslims and other non-christians in the world than there are "christians" and in an outright war , the chances of success for the "western nations - christians " would in the long run be pretty slim .

as i said earlier , i do think that the western nations will have to be prepared for some terrorist attacks from various muslim groups . i doubt that they'll just fold and go away .

btw history is a good teacher if the pupils are willing to learn - just my opinion .
hbg

0 Replies

hbg, I agree with your analysis. All that we are accomplishing in Iraq is to enrage more Muslims because we are seen as occupiers and interference of local differences. They view our support of Israel and our occupation of Iraq as interference. Beyond that, they see how we continue to kill innocent people, use torture, and ignore international laws. We're seen as the bad guys.

0 Replies

What's more discouaging is the simple fact that people like general Petraeus who seems to be intelligent doesn't follow his own beliefs in a two-pronged effort to quell the problems in Iraq; military and diplomacy. He's missing the diplomacy segment, because he never understood the difficulties involved. The Iraqi government is not operational.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote :

Quote:

The Iraqi government is not operational.

that's been evident for a long time , but ...

similarly , the afghan government does not seem to carry much weight outside kabul . nevertheless , the canadian government seems to think that it's a good idea to prop up a currupt government and pour money into it ... very little of which reaches the poor and starving villagers .

(when looking back at the years following WW II it is difficult NOT to come to the conclusion that the governments and various leaders of the allied nations did a far better job of setting the world back on a course of reconciliation and re-construction very quickly .
are we , as individuals , as much to blame for the current problems of the world as the "so-called" leaders ? after all WE - collectively - put those "leaders Rolling Eyes

" into their positions of power. )

hbg(a voter - but not for the current canadian government )

0 Replies

True; we are at fault for the degradation of our politics and politicians by the trends that evolved from about four decades ago when many thought we were on the top of the world after WWII.

We enjoyed good economic periods at the expense of both parents working, and leaving most of our children to fend for themselves. Parents tended to spoil their children with material goods rather than devote their time to their children.

The parents of today do not discipline their children; a phenomenon that transpired through less attention and the "political correctness" of denying teachers the authority to discipline the children.

In the mean time, both parents working became mandatory to keep up with the Joneses while the combined income became less valuable in the market place; it became a necessity, not a choice.

Consumer savings rate suffered, and more seniors remain in the work force to survive after retirement age.

World competition for our dollars exacerbate both our economy in terms of jobs and salaries. College graduates have more difficulty finding jobs today, while the price of "everything" goes up.

Our school systems are failing in the areas of math and science; the future of all economies.

Houston, we have a problem.

0 Replies

War Costs Soar by a Third; Total Could Top $1.4 Trillion

Quote:

It's not just the troops that are surging. War costs are up for American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan* -- way up, more than a third higher than last year. In the first half of this fiscal year, the Defense Department's "average monthly obligations for contracts and pay is running about $12 billion per month, well above the $8.7 billion in FY2006," says a new report, obtained by DANGER ROOM, from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.

Meanwhile, Inside Defense reports that "top Pentagon budget and program officials have directed the military services to prepare spending proposals to finance Iraq and Afghanistan operations... through fiscal year 2009, which will span the last days of the Bush administration and the early months of the next administration."

* Corrected 4:48 PM; thanks to CD for the heads-up.

Quote:

But won't it have been worth it to defeat the evildoers who want to destroy America because they hate our freedoms?

Posted by: de minimis | Jul 6, 2007 10:37:11 AM

(links at source)

0 Replies

Haliburton is making the money at the expense of our "volunteer" military on a war that has no goal or strategy.

0 Replies

Toll in Iraq bombings could surpass 150

Quote:

But Surge is working, senator says Rolling Eyes

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Lindsey Graham has returned from his seventh wartime visit to Iraq with renewed hope that the U.S. troop buildup is producing results.
At the same time, the South Carolina Republican told Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders that they've made too little progress on steps such as reconciling the country's warring factions and sharing oil revenues among Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslim Arabs and Kurds.

"We left the impression upon them that patience at home (in the United States) is running out," Graham said in a phone call from Paris while en route home Thursday.

In contrast with the stalled political progress, Graham said, the surge - the dispatch of 30,000 more U.S. troops that Bush began in January - is yielding clear results.

"The military part of the surge is working beyond my expectations," Graham said. "We literally have the enemy on the run. The Sunni part of Iraq has really rejected al-Qaida all over the country. We're getting more information about al-Qaida operations than we've ever received."

Graham and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona also met with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, and with Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

In Baghdad, Graham and McCain led an Independence Day military re-enlistment ceremony at an ornate former palace of Saddam Hussein.

A total of 588 U.S. troops re-upped at Camp Victory, U.S. headquarters in Iraq, while 161 soldiers became naturalized American citizens.

McCain, who's running for president, addressed the re-enlistees, and Graham led the new citizens in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Morale was very high," Graham said. "It was something to see."

Graham and McCain ate lunch in Ramadi, a former terrorist stronghold 100 miles west of Baghdad that two U.S. senators couldn't have visited six months ago, Graham said.

IRAQ DEVELOPMENTS

Six soldiers killed: The U.S. military today announced the deaths of six Americans in Iraq. Two soldiers died Friday when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol in east Baghdad. A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed Friday when an explosively formed penetrator exploded near their patrol in southeastern Baghdad. Three other service members were killed Thursday - two Marines in western Anbar province and a soldier in Baghdad.

0 Replies

I wish people like Sen. Lindsey Graham would stay in Iraq for about 12 months - the same amount of time demanded of our military - then come back and tell us everything is hunky-Dorry - if he doesn't get killed or maimed first.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I wish people like Sen. Lindsey Graham would stay in Iraq for about 12 months - the same amount of time demanded of our military - then come back and tell us everything is hunky-Dorry - if he doesn't get killed or maimed first.

Make that without protection. I really wouldn't wish that on anyone, including those who have to live with it with no choice.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I wish people like Sen. Lindsey Graham would stay in Iraq for about 12 months - the same amount of time demanded of our military - then come back and tell us everything is hunky-Dorry - if he doesn't get killed or maimed first.

And I wish people like you would go to Iraq for 12 months,then come back and admit that things are not going as badly as you like to make it out to be.

You hear about the bad news,because good news isnt news.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I wish people like Sen. Lindsey Graham would stay in Iraq for about 12 months - the same amount of time demanded of our military - then come back and tell us everything is hunky-Dorry - if he doesn't get killed or maimed first.

And I wish people like you would go to Iraq for 12 months,then come back and admit that things are not going as badly as you like to make it out to be.

You hear about the bad news,because good news isnt news.

No, it's because 'little good news' -- ie., a school repaired here, a small group of insurgents caught there -- doesn't really matter. It isn't significant.

Significant good news would be stuff like: Iraqi parliment getting along and passing bills. Sharp reductions in the level of violence. Reconciliantion between different ethnic groups. A fair oil law being passed. Police and IArmy which are performing effective missions without our help. Regional elections (it's been years).

Stuff that would make you say 'yeah, that's progress!' None of that is happening. No one doubts that if the US military decides to rebuild a school, or rolls through an area, they will be successfull in their mission; but that's not really the point of Iraq right now. The point is to create a society that won't implode, and there hasn't been any progress on that at all in years.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

With all the small good news of schools, we also hear about the negatives of billions of US taxpayer money disappearing. Otherwise, Cyclo gave a good list of what we can consider "good news from Iraq."

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know